Page 163 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] MOHAN TEXTILES v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-V 249
in his order for which he prays to set aside the order passed by the Commission-
er (Appeals).
4. In response to such submissions, Learned Authorised Representative
for the respondent-department Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent supported the
reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)
and in citing the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed in the case of
Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Mumbai v. Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd. reported in
[2012 (286) E.L.T. 500] and in the case of M/s. Anuradha Processors v. Commissioner
of Central Excise, Thane reported in 2007 (213) E.L.T. 350 (Tri. - Mumbai) that in a
similar dispute of classification, specially in M/s. Anuradha Processors case the
Tribunal itself had clarified the processed fabrics are classifiable under Chapter
54 and not under Chapter 59 of the Central Excise Tariff Act for which he sought
no interference by the Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner (Ap-
peals).
5. Heard from both sides at length and perused the case record. It is ob-
served that Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had given his findings on classifi-
cation primarily on the ground that Heading 5911 is a residual entry and covers
goods which cannot be classified under any of the Headings of Section XI of the
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said Heading covers textile products and ar-
ticles for technical use which would indicate that woven fabrics should be sub-
jected to some process to convert fabric into textile product and articles for tech-
nical use, which was found absent in the case of the appellant’s product. Reject-
ing the contention of the appellant that it had earlier intimated to the department
regarding manufacturing of woven fabrics of Synthetic Filament Yarn falling un-
der Chapter 5406 vide its letter dated 29th April, 2004 and the certificate issued
by the buyers concerning use of woven fabrics for industrial application, he
opined that nowhere appellant had pleaded that Synthetic Woven Fabrics were
intended for industrial purpose and basing on the statement of witness, primari-
ly on the statement of proprietor Mr. Hrishikesh Mimani that they had mistaken-
ly classified the product under Chapter 59 instead of Chapter 54, he confirmed
the findings in the Order-in-Original that SSI exemption was not available to the
appellant for which appropriate duty demand along with interest was made.
Further, Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had also confirmed the invocation of
extended period and imposition of equivalent penalty by holding that since pro-
prietor had admitted to have mis-declared the product, there was ill intention on
the part of the appellant to evade duty.
5.1 As appears from the Chapter note to Heading 59.11, the product
under dispute should be meant primarily for technical use and in few cases, for
industrial uses and that is the final stage after which no further processing was
suppressed to be done to make the product fit for technical use, since it is last
Chapter Heading in that Chapter. However going by the certificate issued by the
buyers, it is apparently clear that they were using the product making tailor
made filter bags to be used in chemical and pharmaceutical plants. As woven
fabrics are subjected to further processing to make it fit for technical uses, we
have no hesitation to go with the findings of the Learned Commissioner (Ap-
peals) that synthetic woven fabric is classifiable under Chapter 54.06 and not un-

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  163